Author: Lonero Foundation 2021-03-13 15:02:05
Published on: 2021-03-13T15:02:05+00:00
In this conversation, Andrew clarifies his proposal concerning the Bitcoin network. He emphasizes that he was referring to signature validation cryptography rather than cryptographic hashing, and acknowledges that some minor edits and clarifications are necessary in his proposal. Andrew intends to update the repository based on these changes. Yancy had questioned the technical merit of Andrew's proposal and made a sarcastic remark about him being an algorithm. However, Andrew explains that his proposal aims to expand proof-of-work rather than replace it. He is willing to provide preprints and publications explaining the cryptography and consensus he is working on. Andrew has submitted a BIP Pull Request and hopes to receive a BIP number for the draft before proceeding with development/reference implementation.Andrew also discusses the benefits of a hybrid proof of space and time and upgrading Bitcoin's cryptography. This would require a hard fork, but it wouldn't necessarily disenfranchise current mining entities. The email thread discusses various issues related to the Bitcoin network. One of the emails proposes a better cryptography layer to prevent the vulnerability of the BTC network in the future. The author believes that if the BTC community likes such a proposal, he would be able to build the cryptographic proof himself with as many open-source contributors as possible. The email also mentions the link to an article "Ethereum You Are a Centralized Cryptocurrency, Stop Telling Us That You Aren't" to support the argument.Another email argues that it is critical for the work to be "useless" in order for the security model to remain the same. If the work was useful, it would provide an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when submitting a proof of work, which degrades the security of the network. Proposing a hard fork in the hashing algorithm will invalidate the enormous amount of capital expenditure by mining entities and disincentivize future capital expenditure into mining hardware that may compute more useful proofs of work. This puts the entire network at risk, and no entity ties their interests to that of the bitcoin network at large.The email thread also discusses other issues related to the BTC network, such as NP-Completeness or Halting, which could make the network vulnerable in the future. The proposal regarding the hashing algorithm and cryptography warrants some discussion, similar to bigger block heights proposed as hard forks. The email thread concludes with discussing the move to renewables and the negative externalities associated with energy expenditure in the mining market.
Updated on: 2023-06-14T19:06:39.979303+00:00